Jackie was kind of right

This is going to be difficult to write in a way that most people at home will understand, because Chinese culture is just so phenomenally and fundamentally different from anything we're used to. But when Jackie Chan said last week that "Chinese need to be controlled", he was kind of right. I know that sounds bad. I think that's why there has been a backlash against him over it. But after talking to a lot of Chinese people over the years, I think most would agree in principle with his intentions. And if you look at where the arguments against him are coming from, it’s mainly Hong Kong and Taiwan – not so much mainland China. I've had several political conversations about US democracy versus the "Chinese style of governing". I choose to write it that way because many people in the states call it "Communism", but in the words of Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it means." China did used to be a communist (small c) country in the times of Chairman Mao, but the current "Communist" (big C) party isn't like the old days. The current government is struggling to balance support for the common people and the good of society and support for a booming capitalist economy. The key to understanding China is in understanding the first part of that. Capitalism in business is something the Chinese want but only if it doesn't negatively impact what's good for society. And democracy is an entirely separate issue.

Start with the communal attitude. If you wake up early on any morning, you will see large groups (as in 20-30 people) practicing Tai Chi in parks and parking lots all around the country. By mid-afternoon there will be public ballroom dancing in those same places. And late into the evening is the exercise time. All of these events are free and open to the public. I'm currently in a really small town, and a few nights ago witnessed a group of 60, mostly women, engaged in an intricately choreographed dance routine with a small ball that was balanced on the surface of a racket. People here do everything in groups. The result of that much interaction as a group is that you think as a group. Not that the individual doesn't have their own thoughts and aspirations, but the connection to the group is such that everything is done in consideration of the impact to society. Sure some of that is the product of generations of "propaganda" such as the national slogan leading up to the Olympics "Work towards a harmonious society", but at what point does something become propaganda because it was initially part of the culture and then the propaganda cements it as essential to the fabric of culture?

Which is where the idea of sacrifice comes from. I was talking with my graduate student last night about the swine flu (the conversation inspiring this post). He said that it is the responsibility of governments to make people stay at home. I laughed and said, "That would only work here". He got very agitated with me and tried to convince me that if it is for the good of society, then people must do what their government says. I tried to explain that yes, while I agree in principle, if the US government tried to mandate that people not go to work or out to run errands or visiting friends and family, the average person would essentially say "screw you, I have a life to live". It would have to get very bad before the individual would see how staying at home is a benefit to *themselves* to not come into contact with all of those other people out there who might be sick. A very different way of thinking from "I must stay home because I might get others sick". That's evident even in the way people in this part of the world treat an ordinary cold. Throughout Asia you will see people wearing face masks. I asked once in Japan why this is the case, and someone explained to me that people who are sick wear masks in public to keep other people from getting sick. But the part of the conversation that took my breath away was when my student used an example: "sometimes when a house is on fire the fire department has to destroy other houses around it that aren't on fire to keep the fire from spreading." I couldn’t believe I was hearing him say that. And it dumbfounded him to hear that *never* would happen in the US.

So back to governing and the Chinese needing to "be controlled". It's not that the Chinese aren't capable of making decisions and taking care of themselves. They have local elections that are more like our idea of "democracy". But the Communist Party determines internally the structure of parliament and selects the president and prime minister from prominent party officials. Chinese citizens don't vote for higher offices. And most of them don't want to. They trust the party to do what's best for society because that's how their culture is structured. They fear that with 1.3 billion voices in the mix, chaos would follow. The personal motivations of 1.3 billion people can’t possibly determine what’s best for the group as a whole. Each province is so different. People in big cities are different from small towns and rural areas. There are 56 minority groups in addition to the overwhelming majority of Han Chinese. The average Chinese citizen believes that democracy would bring the downfall of social stability. And that's what is the most important to them. You can see it in the fact that the #1 news headline before the swine flu was the protests in Thailand. China has lately been obsessed with Thailand as an example of a failing democracy, and the Thai instability has barely made a ripple in US news. You can argue that people think this way because it's what their government is telling them, which is entirely true and potentially a mechanism of self-preservation of power. But it's also a snake eating its tail. The government promotes these "stability" memes to preserve its own authority because preservation of their authority promotes social stability, which is what the country needs and ultimately wants.

And I'm not defending all of the government's policies, I'm just saying that I understand why the Chinese people are generally happy with the way things are. But while their way of governing has done a lot to keep China knitted together and moving forward, they've also done a lot of horrible things. Cordoning off villages to control protests and controlling the media message and the internet (no YouTube). Destroying low income housing in Beijing before the Olympics because it "looks bad" and forcibly relocating millions of farmers from below the high water line of the Three Gorges Dam project. And what I think is the saddest policy is the relocation of millions of Han Chinese to Xinjiang and Tibet to "out-populate" minority groups who they see as a threat to social stability resulting in the watering down of some of the world's richest cultures.

I really do wish I understood and could read Chinese to get a better grasp on this place. It's fascinating. I've been here four times now for a cumulative of about 6 months in China, and I feel like I'm just now starting to kind of "get it".